international journal of linguistics, literature and translation … · 2019. 4. 4. ·...

International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation (IJLLT)

ISSN: 2617-0299

www.ijllt.org

Employing TBL and 3PS Learning Approaches to Improve Writing Skill Among Saudi

EFL Students in Jouf University Dr. Ahmad Ibrahim Mugableh1* & Dr. Mohammad Nayef Khreisat2

1English Department, Jouf University, Tubarjal, Saudi Arabia 2English Department, Jouf University, Tubarjal, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Author: Dr. Ahmad Ibrahim Mugableh, E-mail: [email protected]

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Received: December 15, 2018

Accepted: January 05, 2018

Published: January 31, 2019

Volume: 2

Issue: 1

DOI: 10.32996/ijllt.2019.2.1.27

Learning the writing skill is a challenging task for second or foreign language

learners. This difficulty stems from the fact that students required multiple

skills and knowledge while writing. They need, for example, enough

vocabulary inventory, grammar knowledge, and other discourse strategies to

organize the text. Students are also in need for background knowledge about

the subject matter of the writing task, so they generate their ideas accordingly.

To achieve all these targets and to meet the challenges, a need for an approach

that meets the requirement of the written task and enhances the students’

abilities and linguistic background is a must. The aim of this research is to

investigate two of the available approaches; namely, the TBL approach and

the conventional 3Ps model, to improve Saudi EFL students’ writing skill in

Jouf university. The focus is on finding out the effect of the two approaches,

the differences between them, and what are the aspects of improvement that

TBL approach can achieve. The data were collected experimentally through

writing pretest and posttest after students received training using the two

approaches for 6 weeks. The findings revealed that using TBL approach is

significantly effective in learning writing skill. It was also found that TBL

approach is more effective than the conventional model. Furthermore,

findings demonstrated that employing TBL approach on teaching Saudi EFL

students’ writing skills improved five writing sub-skills including

organization, content, mechanism, grammar, and vocabulary with the

organization and content the most improved areas.

KEYWORDS

3Ps Model, TBL Approach,

Writing Skills

1- INTRODUCTION

Writing, as one of the four major skills, has been seen

as the most important skill because of its role in the

communication between the writers and readers. It is

also well-known that the information received through

listening and reading channels is reproduced through

writing. In this sense, writing is a productive skill like

speaking, but the representation is made through

letters instead of sounds. Although it was found that

writing is the least portion of people’s communication

in comparison to other skills (Gilakjani & Ahmadi

2011), using writing is essential and critical in business

communication, legal documents, and books of

various kinds. Nevertheless, learning the writing skill

is a challenging task for second or foreign language

learners (Al Fadda 2012; Mourtaga 2004). This

difficulty stems from the multiple skills and

knowledge that students required to employ while

writing. They need for example sufficient vocabulary

repertoire, grammar knowledge,

and other discourse strategies to organize the text

(Ridha, 2012). Students are also in need for

background knowledge about the subject matter of the

writing task, so they generate their ideas accordingly.

In Saudi educational context, communicating in

English language requires students, who study English

as a foreign language (EFL), to master the four skills:

reading, writing, speaking and listening. Mastering

these skills can help these students exchange

information about the latest developments occurring

around the world (Keshta & Harb 2013). Mastering the

writing skill, as one of the productive skills, is

considered the most difficult and challenging task for

Saudi EFL students (Al Fadda 2012; Mourtaga 2004).

This difficulty stems from the high level of cognition

processes that are needed to build the relationships in

the writing discourse at the word, sentence, and whole

text levels. This includes producing a piece of writing

Employing TBL and 3PS Learning Approaches to Improve Writing Skill Among Saudi EFL Students in Jouf University

218

that is coherent, cohesive, and meaningful. To achieve

these elements of writing, Saudi EFL students must

write in an organized format that follows a clear

pattern, keeps smooth transition among the sentences

and paragraphs, selects appropriate lexical devices,

and maintains an overall well-formed structure of the

sentences in relation to the word order and word forms.

Once these writing elements are achieved, it can be

said that the Saudi EFL students are able to deliver

their ideas and thoughts more smoothly and effectively

to the reader.

Most EFL classrooms in Saudi context of education

employ the so called 3Ps approach of teaching which

stands for (present, practice, and produce)

(Hamoudeh, 2016). 3Ps approach is “an approach for

teaching language items which follows a sequence of

presentation of the item, practice of the item and then

production (i.e. use) of the item” (Tomlinson, 2011a:

xv). The teacher role in this approach is principal as he

or she is responsible for providing information and

guidance about the topic and content of writing. The

student’s role in this approach is limited to apply the

information and guidance received from the teacher to

produce the writing. Accordingly, this approach tends

to be more into teacher-centered. Moreover, this

approach does not require students to interact or

discuss with other students in the same class. This

makes this approach more suitable to learn the aspects

of writing that do not require much communication,

such as grammar and vocabulary. However, it is less

effective in learning other aspects of writing such as

planning the content.

Although 3Ps approach is one of the well-established

methodologies in the academic arena, it has its critics

and a couple of relatively new methodologies start

gaining popularity such as TBL (Task-Based

Learning) approach. TBL approach is a new approach

to learn the language through structured activities and

tasks that aim to give students a space to communicate

while they are learning and to be more responsible for

their learning. Accordingly, the focus of TBL approach

is on the actual tasks that stimulate the interest of

students since learning would be built around that

particular task (Nunan 2005). According to Willis

(1996), who provided a framework of this type of

approach, the teacher’s role is limited to guiding

students during the activity by selecting and

sequencing the tasks, preparing learners for the tasks,

and raising students’ awareness. In this process, the

role of teacher is to adopt real-life tasks and problems

as teaching materials to stimulate students to use

cognitive ways of thinking (Hung 2014). The students’

role is to discuss, perform, and evaluate the task and

then produce what is required from the task. It is an

integrated system with multidisciplinary teaching and

learning approach and offers the students rich learning

opportunities in different disciplines (Harden 2001). In

the teaching process of TBL, students are often placed

in complex situations where they should analyze

problem by themselves and learn necessary

knowledge to solve problem (Qing, Ni, & Hong 2010).

Moreover, the students need to work in pairs or groups

to solve the problems in the tasks.

Based on the above-mentioned arguments, this

research is an attempt to employ TBL approach in

Aljouf university particularly in EFL classroom to find

out the effect of using task-based learning (TBL)

approach and a conventional approach (3Ps) on the

Saudi EFL students’ writing skill, the difference in the

Saudi EFL students’ writing scores as a result of using

the two learning approaches, conventional (3Ps) and

task-based learning (TBL) and the aspects of

improvement in the Saudi EFL students’ writing

performance that are achieved by using the TBL

approach.

2- STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

To meet the Saudi EFL students’ needs in developing

their English writing skills, there is a crucial need to

adopt prominent teaching approach that meets the

requirement of the written task and that enhance the

students’ abilities and their linguistic background.

Accordingly, two main learning approaches are

proposed and researched namely Task-based learning

approach (TBL) and conventional approach (3Ps).

Several researchers had employed TBL and 3PS

approaches to find out the possibilities of using one of

these approaches in developing students’ learning

skills. TBL and 3Ps were investigated in various areas

of language learning, such as in speaking (Hasan 2014;

Shafaei, Salimi, & Talebi 2013), vocabulary

acquisition (Fallahrafie, Rahmany, & Sadeghi 2015;

Javanbakht & Yasuj 2011; Thanh & Huan 2012) and

listening (Urmia 2012). One of these attempts was

made by Assalahi (2013), who administered an

interview with lecturers to find out the reasons behind

adopting the conventional approach in a grammar

classroom on the account of the more communicative

one, the TBL. lecturers reported number of reasons

that justified their use and preference of 3Ps approach

in learning. Lecturers showed consistent beliefs that

they prefer the 3Ps to TBL as they think that the use of

a communicative approach like TBL will make them

lose their central role in the class, lose the control over

the class, and eliminate the students’ needs for them as

sources of knowledge. Other contextual factors were

IJLLT 2(1):217-229

219

also reported by lecturers. They noted that TBL is time

consuming and the classrooms are not equipped with

the aids and materials that are needed for explanation.

Although the study conducted by Assalahi contributed

to our standing of the possible barriers of using the

TBL approach, it was not without gaps. First, the focus

of comparison was on teaching grammar with little

attention given to writing. Second, the findings were

based on the lecturers’ point of views and

perspectives. The students’ performance as a result of

using either of the approaches was not measured.

These two gaps are filled in the present research by

comparing the outcomes of the two approaches in

learning writing skills. Moreover, this is very

significant to direct English lecturers toward the

importance of using TBL approach in the Saudi

context of education. By comparing the effect of the

two approaches (TBL and 3Ps) on the Saudi EFL

students, this will raise the lecturers as well as the

students’ awareness of the numerous advantages and

disadvantages of the two approaches and their impact

on students’ writing development.

3- RESEARCH QUESTIONS

3.1 What is the effect of using task-based learning

(TBL) approach and a conventional approach

(3Ps) on the Saudi EFL students’ writing skill?

3.2 What is the difference in the Saudi EFL students’

writing scores as a result of using the two learning

approaches, conventional (3Ps) and task-based

learning (TBL)?

3.3 What are the aspects of improvement in the Saudi

EFL students’ writing performance that are

achieved by using the TBL approach?

4- LITERATURE REVIEW

4.1 Task-Based Learning Framework

The notion of task-based learning is derived from the

concept of vocational education, which relies on

practice and gaining experience over practice. The

theoretical background for this approach is

‘cooperative learning’, which assumes that learning

can be achieved through doing learning activities in

groups. In each activity, a learner can exchange their

ideas and information to motivate other groups’

members. In this sense, the cooperation among the

group members makes the source of learning and

improves the learning outcomes (Olsen & Kagan

1992).

Since it was established in the mid-1970s, TBL

approach has received attention from several

researchers, such as (Ellis 2003; Hung 2014; Nunan

2006; Willis 1996) and others. The main idea in this

approach involves giving students an academic task in

the form of “classroom work” that aims to involves

students in a dynamic and communicative process, so

they become able to comprehend, manipulate, produce

or interact in the target language (Nunan 2006: 5). In

this sense, TBL is a contextual process that requires

students to achieve the given task based on a

‘workplan” Ellis (2003). It is a kind of a

communicative activity in which the target language is

used to achieve communicative purposes that are

crowned by authentic production (Willis 1996). As

proposed by Clark, Scarino, and Brownell (1994),

performing any learning task successfully requires the

following:

o A real-life purpose that justify performing the

task.

o A real or imagined context of the event in

which the task takes place.

o Doing and thinking processes to perform the

task.

o Producing the results thought of and

practiced using the skills and knowledge

obtained from practicing.

Compared with the other conventional approaches

such as the 3Ps, TBL approach assumes that the four

language skills are integrated in learning process. In

this sense, TBL focuses on both, the meaning achieved

through interaction and form expressed by grammar

accuracy (Nunan 2004). Consequently, it is expected

to control the potential threats of the conventional

writing learning approaches. However, this approach

is not without limitations. The execution of TBL takes

longer duration to be implemented and it does not

focus much on grammatical accuracy. These

limitations make TBL to be used in English writing

classrooms in a narrow range.

The present research adopts Willis’s (1996)

framework of task-based learning as the theoretical

learning framework. Willis developed this framework

first in 1996 as consisting of three stages or classroom

activities (1) pre-task, (2) task cycle, and (3) language

focus. While the first and second stages are

communicative and focus on meaning, the third stage

is productive and focuses on the form. The pre-task

involves students to prepare prior to performing a

certain task. This preparation is usually made by the

teacher, who provides students in this stage with the

useful information, such as the meaning of certain

words and phrases that facilitate students’ mission. He

or she also introduce and explain the task through

certain demonstrations, such as pictures, audio or

video recordings. The purpose of doing this is to add

to the students’ background knowledge of the topic in

hand.

Task cycling involves students to work in groups, or

pairs if their number is very small, to discuss the task.

The teacher’s role in this stage is to monitor students

while they are communicating and negotiating the


220

topic without interference. This is important, as

monitoring students from distance would achieve

student-centered based learning. In this stage, the

students plan the task, finish it in specific time allotted

for this purpose, write their notes, elicit agreement

from other group members, exchange their ideas, and

come up with the first draft of their task.

In the language focus stage, the students in each group

produce a report of their production and share it with

the class. The teacher’s role in this stage is to sum up

the language points in the task prior to assigning

homework that should be done individually.

4.2 Task-Based Learning Approach in Learning

Writing

There are various designs that have been proposed for

a task-based lesson (e.g. Lee, 2001; Prabhu, 1987;

Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996). However, they all have

four principle phases in common as following:

o Pre-task phase: the teacher introduces the

topic to be learned by learners where he/she

utilizes tasks that help learners learn useful

words and phrases. In this phase the teacher

should check the learners’ understanding of

the task instruction.

o During-task phase: in this phase, the students

perform the task either in pairs or in small

cooperative structures. This phase depends

on the type of task to be tackled. The teacher

role in this phase was as a monitor and a

motivator for students to be involved in the

task.

o Post-task phase: in this phase, students

present their reports depend on the nature of

the task either in speaking or writing.

o Feedback and evaluation: the teacher may

wish to conduct a feedback session to discuss

the success of the task and consider

suggestions for improving it. He may give

brief feedback on content and form. And he

may play a record of others doing the same

task. Evaluation of the task would provide

useful information for facilitator when

planning further tasks.

This research adopts the task-based learning (TBL)

approach by Willis (1996). The selection of this

approach was made on the basis that the use of this

approach in learning the four skills in English

language revolutionized the learning process. Instead

of being dependent on the conventional learning that

is dependent on mastering the forms of the language,

which requires more memorizing abilities, through

TBL, learning becomes more dynamic,

communicative, enjoyable, and fruitful.

According to this framework, learning is built upon

giving learners a variety of learning tasks. Each of

these tasks consist of communicative activities about

real life situations in the target language, which require

learners to interactively involve in critical thinking and

problem-solving procedures to construct their

knowledge and achieve the required task.

Although Willis (1996) did not focus on writing as a

skill in the scope of her approach, adopting this

framework in the current research hopes to give an

opportunity to the students in the experimental group

to practice writing in fluent and spontaneous ways of

using the language, and to guarantee producing more

accurate form of the language.

4.3 Conventional Learning Approach (3PS)

As opposed to TBL, conventional learning approach

focuses on the form rather than the meaning. The

process unusually passes into three stages; namely,

presentation, practice, and production known as 3Ps

model. The teacher, who is dominant in the classroom,

usually begins the lesson by providing the new forms

and meanings to be learned. According to Skehan

(1998: 9), 3Ps is conducted into three stages. In the

first stage, the structure of a grammatical point is

presented to facilitate understanding of the underlying

rule. This would develop the “declarative knowledge”

of the learner. Skehan added that the second stage

involves moving from gathering knowledge into

practice. In this stage, the focus is on the accuracy,

which is “subject to the teacher’s careful supervision

or control”. In the third stage, Skehan noted that the

declarative knowledge obtained from the first stage is

converted into “procedural knowledge” to produce the

language. This production is not guaranteed as

students’ control on their learning is “gradually

loosened” when they move from stage to another (p.

93).

As it is shown by Skehan, the procedures and focus in

3Ps model are quite different from the steps,

procedures, and focus in TBL in many aspects. While

the focus is on the teacher-centered method in 3Ps, the

student is the centered of leaning in TBL. In the latter,

the teacher’s role is limited to guiding students during

the activity by selecting and sequencing the tasks,

preparing learners for the tasks, and raise students’

awareness. Meanwhile, students’ role in TBL is to

discuss, perform, and evaluate the task and produce

what is required from the task on their own pace.

Another difference between the two methods is that

3Ps focuses on the form and accuracy, whereas, the

TBL focuses on the form and meaning at the same

time. In comparison to conventional learning

IJLLT 2(1):217-229

221

approaches, TBL is more communicative, which

entitles students with more engagement, motivation,

and critical thinking skills (Qing et al. 2010; Zhaochun

2015). In 3Ps model of learning, students are only

following the teacher’s instructions without much

interference in the learning decision and in a way that

is not communicative. Little space is left to them to

discuss, plan, and share their ideas and planning with

others.

This research applies the two approaches on two

groups of students. The first group practices learning

using the 3Ps and the other practices the TBL. The

purpose is to verify the effect of the two learning

approaches and the difference between them in

improving the learners’ writing skill.

4.4 Research on TBL Approach

Several studies attempted to find out the effect of using

TBL approach on students’ writing performance. In a

study conducted by Bantis (2008), the researcher

investigated the use of TBL in teaching writing. The

focus of Bantis’ research was to find out the problems

connected with using TBL pedagogically as a base of

teaching English communicatively and the influence

of such instructions on student with mixed ability.

Moreover, the focus also was on finding the effect of

using TBL approach on L2 acquisition of writing. The

researcher used a mixed method design that employed

qualitative data collection and quantitative data

analysis. The data were collected in the forms of 35

students’ written transcriptions of writing conferences,

writing samples, and interviews. One teacher and 10

school students were also interviewed. The descriptive

analysis showed that the TBL approach can be used a

means of instruction to provide with differentiated

teaching. It was also found that this approach can be

used pedagogically as a means of instruction following

the constructivism theory in which the teacher is the

model and the students who construct their

knowledge. Finally, the results showed that TBL

proved to be a useful vehicle of second language

acquisition to address the diverse needs of second

language learners.

Another study was conducted by Alavi and Tabar

(2012), who examined the effect of the task type and

pre-task planning, as one aspect of TBL, on the level

of writing accuracy among Iranian EFL students. The

first focus of the study was on determining whether

there was any significant difference in the level of

accuracy in the students’ writing production across

two types of tasks: personal and decision-making. The

second focus was on finding whether the accuracy is

significantly important based on the various planning

types are performed: no planning, individual, pair, or

group planning before performing the task. To achieve

the aims of the study and answer the research

questions, the researchers recruited 120 Iranian EFL

students whose level of English was intermediate. The

subjects were selected in a random sampling technique

and then assigned to three 3 experimental groups and

one control group. The data collected from students in

the form of written productions were analyzed

descriptively and inferentially using the 2-way

ANOVA test in SPSS. The use of this test was to

determine the single and tandem effect of two

variables addresses in the study (task type and

planning condition). The findings showed that the task

type affects learners’ writing accuracy in a way that

the greater accuracy is realized in the cognitively more

complex decision-making tasks. Moreover, the pre-

task planning conditions had great effect on the

students’ accuracy; the experimental groups enjoyed a

higher accuracy in the tasks than the control group

which confirmed the effect of pre-task.

Moussaoui (2012) conducted a qualitative and quasi-

experimental study on second year undergraduate

students from Setif University English department in

Algeria. The study sought to investigate the effect of

working in pairs, as one form of cooperative writing,

in fostering undergraduate students writing autonomy

and attitude. The result of pre and post training in

writing tasks showed that most of subjects’ essays in

both control group and study group were lacking

cohesion and logical organization. On other hand the

finding also showed that there is a significant

influence of peer work on improving students writing,

thinking skills, hence, develop their writing autonomy.

In another study by Cao (2012), the researcher aimed

at finding out whether the use of TBL approach in

Chinese university students’ context is feasible to train

students on writing. Building on the students’ old

practices and difficulties in writing, the researchers

asked about the possibility of adopting TBL as an

approach to improve the students’ writing

competence. The researcher used two questionnaire

and two tests (pre and post). The pre-treatment

questionnaire showed that the students face difficulties

in the content and organization. The students also

showed less difficulty in using vocabulary, structuring

the sentences, and fluency. The analysis of the

students’ scores in the posttests showed that the use of

TBL was effective in promoting students’

competencies in writing, as the students’ scores in the

posttest were significantly different from their scores

in the pretest. The students in the experimental group

also performed significantly better than the students in

the control group. The students’ scores in the control

group remain constant without any noticeable change.

In another study, Han (2014) investigated the effect of


222

using TBL approach on the writing performance of

university students in China. Two treatment groups

were created, control and experimental with 48 and 46

students respectively. After receiving 2 hour-training

a week for the whole semester, an open-ended 3 item

questionnaire was administered to students. The three

items attempted to elicit answers from students

regarding the TBL effect, students’ beliefs, and TBL

strengths and weaknesses. The qualitative analysis

showed that the students who received training on

using TBL were more active than those students

received conventional training. The students also

believed that using TBL approach was an interesting

and new experience that motivated them to use

English more. They maintained that using such an

approach helped them improve other skills, such as

vocabulary and speaking. This study was important as

it revealed the extent to which the TBL approach can

be useful in learning writing. However, the students

were not tested practically to confirm what they have

achieved. The present research while assuming the

effect of this approach was keen to test students to see

whether the use of TBL can practically improve

students’ writing performance.

Hai-yan (2014) investigated the extent to which the

use of TBL approach is useful in teaching big number

classes in a university setting in China. The data

collected for the study through a questionnaire that

administered to 196 first year university students.

After receiving training for one year using TBL

approach, the analysis showed that the TBL approach

can be used in classes with big number of students.

The findings also revealed that the students become

more aware of the importance of using their method

on their writing process improvement. However, they

were less aware of the teachers’ roles. The students

positively affirmed that using such an approach was

effective and useful to their learning of English

writing. Although the analysis approved the effect of

TBL approach, the findings were based only on the

students’ responses in the questionnaire. No writing

tests were conducted to investigate the effect

empirically. This calls for further investigation that

exposes students to real tests that measure the impact.

This study closes this methodological gap by testing

the effect of TBL approach by conducting a pretest and

posttest after giving instructions using this approach.

It also compared the use of this approach with another

conventional approach to have clearer picture of TBL

approach effect on students writing.

As explained earlier, TBL approach is one of the

applications of cooperative learning. This approach is

conducted into three stages, pre-task, task cycle, and

language focus. In the first task, the students are

required to plan before doing a written task, which is

essential for this approach to succeed. Pre-task

planning might affect the students’ production in

writing once it is guided by carefully selection of

words or sequences. To investigate the effect of

planning, Mohammadnia and Ayaz (2015) placed the

students into two pressure planning situations, a

guided group, who were provided with key words and

expressions, and unguided one without being given

any guiding words and expressions. The subjects were

30 male and female Turkish EFL students studying

English language in an institute in Iran. The students

were in the upper-intermediate level of language

proficiency. They were asked to describe a process in

a picture in writing depending on a sample process

picture given to them. However, the guided group was

provided with markers written or underlined in the

sample picture while the unguided group was only

given the sample picture without any markers. The

statistical analysis showed that the planning guided

pressured group outperformed the unguided pressured

planning group indicating that planning given to

students can positively affect EFL learners’ writing

production. Although the study provided important

insights on the effect of planning the task before

writing on writing production, the findings were built

on the planning designed already by the teacher. In

other words, it is still unknown whether the students

are able to plan for themselves without relying on their

teachers marking on the papers, which is in the core of

task-based learning. Students in the task-based

learning are supposed to plan their writing and come

up with their own ideas following the training they

have received from their teachers. They should be

responsible for their writing and able to construct their

knowledge by themselves. In the current study the

students received training on planning and executing

the writing task. They were then asked to use what

they have learnt to construct their knowledge by

producing writing.

Zhaochun (2015) applied Willis’ (2003) approach of

TBL to find out whether the use of this approach can

improve the English writing of Chinese students and

whether it is more effective than conventional teaching

approaches. Fifty university Chinese students were

recruited as a sample in the study. The students’ mean

scores in the language proficiency level were assumed

by the researcher as the same after administering a

language placement test to the students. The subjects

were then assigned to two intact class groups,

experimental and control. Three instruments were

used in the study: pre-test, posttest, and an interview.

The two groups were asked to answer two writing

tests: pre-experiment test and post-experiment test.

The statistical analysis showed that the use of TBL

IJLLT 2(1):217-229

223

approach which lasted for 16 weeks was effective as

the students in the experimental group, who received

training using this approach, were improved

significantly in comparison to the students who

received conventional teaching using the 3P’s

approach. The aspects of improvement included a

general development in the students’ role from being

passive recipient to more active participants. This

result was confirmed by the students’ answers in the

interview. The study was well done although the

individual differences of the students were not

considered in relation to their individual

achievements. The reliance in the study was on the

mean scores of the students. Moreover, the study had

another limitation, as it did not consider the students

gender, which might have affected the students’

scores.

Although all of the above-mentioned researches had

investigated different academic contexts in different

educational contexts, none of these studies found in

literature as far as the researcher is aware addressed

the case of Saudi EFL students in any academic

context. Therefore, this research was conducted in

order to fill the gap by investigating the effect of using

TBL approach on writing production of Saudi EFL

students in Jouf university.

5- METHODOLOGY

5.1 Research Design

Since the main purpose of this research was to find out

the effect of using two learning approaches namely;

TBL and 3PS approaches on developing the Saudi

EFL students’ writing skills of argumentative essay, a

quasi-experimental design was employed. According

to Creswell (2002), this design enables the researchers

to find the differences between groups (difference

between the control and experimental) and within

subjects’ differences (differences in performance

among the students of the same group: the control or

experimental). In this research, this design helped the

researcher to find out the effect of each approach on

the students’ writing performance in the control group

(those who used 3Ps approach) as well as the students’

writing performance in the experimental group (those

who used TBL approach). This was achieved by

finding the differences in the students’ scores of each

group in the pretest with their scores in the posttest.

Moreover, this design helped the researcher to

compare the effect of the two approaches on the two

groups of students after receive training. This was

made by comparing the students’ writing mean scores

in the experimental with the mean scores of the control

group students.

The students in this research were categorized into two

treatment groups; control and experimental. All

subjects in the two groups were asked to write an essay

before receiving any training as a pretest. This pretest

was important as a point of reference of the current

writing performance of the students in the two groups

before receiving any training. The subjects in the two

groups then received two types of training. The

subjects in the control group received training using

the conventional approach (3Ps) in which the students

learnt how to present, practice, and produce their

writing. The students in the experimental group, on the

other hand, received writing training using Willis’s

(1996) TBL approach, which consists of a pre-task,

task cycle, and language

focus. At the end of the training period, which lasted

for 6 weeks, the subjects in each group were asked to

write a posttest.

The data collected from the pretests and posttests were

calculated to answer the research questions. Therefore,

in order to answer the first research question which

targets the effect of each approach on the students’

writing performance, the students’ scores in the pretest

and posttest of each group were compared. To answer

the second research question which targets the

differences in impact between the two approaches, the

means of the scores obtained from each group were

also compared. To answer the third question, which

targets the aspect of improvement as a result of using

TBL approach was analyzed qualitatively by

providing instances from the students’ writing in the

pretest and posttest.

5.2 Sampling Method

Students were selected in a convenience sampling (i.e.

selection based on the availability of students). Since

the sampling method is convenience, the findings in

this study are only generalizable to the subjects in the

present study (Creswell 2011). The subjects of this

research were divided into two groups where 25

students were in the control group, and 25 students

were in the experimental group.

5.3 Data Collection Instrument

The data in the present study were collected

quantitatively using three instruments: (1) a writing

pretest before receiving training, (2) training for six

weeks, and (3) writing posttest after receiving training.

The following is a detailed account of these

instruments.

5.3.1 Writing pretest

Prior to the training that was given to the students

using the two approaches (TBL and 3Ps), the subjects

in the two groups (control and experimental) were

asked to write a 200-word argumentative essay on ‘the

advantages and disadvantages of eating fast food and

home-made food . The selection of the topic was made


224

since it was argumentative and derived from the

course book (Writing from within by Curtis Kelly and

Arlen Gargagliano). The purpose of this instrument

was to determine the students’ writing performance

before receiving any training on writing. The scored

obtained from pretest were kept to be compared with

the students’ scores in the posttest after receiving

training.

5.3.2 Training

After exposing students to the pretests, the subjects in

the two groups, control and experimental had received

training using the TBL approach and 3Ps for 6 weeks

where they attended 8 writing lessons. The training

sessions consisted of the following:

o 1 session was specified to conduct the writing

pretest.

o 8 sessions were specified for giving students

instruction on writing argumentative essays

using the two approaches.

o 1 session was specified to conduct the writing

posttest.

5.3.3 Writing posttest

After receiving training using the two approaches

(TBL and 3Ps) for 6 weeks, the students were asked to

write a posttest on the same topic that was used in the

pretest. The selection of the same topic was to ensure

the validity of the experiment as the difficulty of the

tasks remained the same (Creswell 2011), so

comparable findings are reached. The purpose of the

posttest test was to find out whether the adoption of

Jane Willis’ TBL framework in writing classes can

improve the Saudi EFL students’ writing competence

or not. This was achieved by comparing the students’

scores in the control group with their counterparts’

scores in the experimental group prior and after

training. The mean scores obtained from the posttest

of each group of students were employed to answer the

research questions.

5.4 Data Analysis

To analyses the data in this study, the following

instruments were employed:

5.4.1 Marking analytical scale

The students’ writing production in the pretest and

posttest were analyzed by marking their writing

production against a marking analytical scale (see

appendix A). This instrument was adopted from

Alderson, Clapham, and Wall (1995), who developed

a marking scale of writing based on five writing

features: content, organization, vocabulary, grammar,

and mechanism (punctuation and spelling). Each

writing feature was given a score of 5 scores with a

total score of 25 across the five features. Under the

content feature, the students were rated based on the

relevance and adequacy of addressing the content. For

the organization, the students were rated based on the

evidence of using organization skills, such as using an

adequate number of paragraphs and the clarity of the

internal structure of ideas in the paragraphs. The

vocabulary feature was assessed based on the

relevance, appropriateness, and adequacy of the used

vocabulary to the topic. The grammar feature was

assessed based on the accuracy. For the mechanism,

the students’ use of punctuations and spelling mistakes

were marked for accuracy.

5.4.2 Statistical Tests

After marking the students’ writing production using

the aforementioned criteria and to analyze the data

obtained by means of the two writing tests (pretest and

posttest), the students’ scores in the control and

experimental groups were keyed into the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS V.22) to prepare

for analysis. Two statistical tests were used, (1) SPSS

Paired Sample T-Test and (2) SPSS Independent T-

Test.

6- FINDINGS

6.1 Effect of Using TBL Approach on Students’

Writing Performance (RQ1a)

The students’ scores obtained from the pretest and

posttest were compared using the paired T-Test. This

test was used to find the differences in the performance

of students of each group before and after receiving

treatment. The focus of comparison was to find out

whether students in the experimental group and

control group had improved after training them using

TBL. As shown in the descriptive statistics in Table 1,

the mean score of the 25 students in the experimental

group in the pretest (M=15.6, SD = 1.435) were much

below their scores in the posttest (M=23.16, SD =1.7).

Experimental

Group

Mean N Std.

Deviation

Pretest Scores 15.68 25 1.435

Posttest Scores 23.16 25 1.700

Table 1. Effect of Using TBL Approach on Students’

Writing Scores in Experimental Group

These findings are visually illustrated in Figure 1. As

it can be seen, the students’ scores have improved from

15.68 in the pretest to reach 23.16 in the posttest. The

IJLLT 2(1):217-229

225

difference in the mean scores between the two types of

writing tests give initial impression that the training

that students received influenced their writing

performance.

Figure 1. Differences in Writing Scores as a Result

of Using TBL between the Pretest and Posttest in the

Experimental Group

To determine whether the improvement in the

student’s scores as a result of using TBL approach

during training in the experimental group was

significant, a Paired Samples T-test was conducted

using SPSS. As shown in the inferential statistics (see

Table 2), t (24) = 19.963, p = .000, since the significant

value was smaller than alpha, it can be affirmed that

the training had a significant effect on the students’

achievement in writing.

Experimental

group

Mean t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Pretest Scores

- Posttest

Scores

-7.480 -

19.963

24 .000

Table 2. Significance of Effect of Using TBL

Approach on Students’ Writing Scores in

Experimental Group

It can be noticed that the students who received

training using TBL in the experimental group had

improved significantly due to the treatment. This

indicates that the use of TBL was effective in

improving the Saudi EFL students’ writing

performance.

6.2 Effect of Using 3Ps Approach on Students’

Writing Performance (RQ1b)

For the students’ scores in the control group, the

descriptive statistics (see Table 3) shows that the mean

score of the 25 students in the control group in the

pretest (M = 18.33, SD = 3.088) were a little bit higher

than their scores in the posttest (M = 18.37, SD =

2,151). These findings are visually illustrated in Figure

2.

Control

Group

Mean N Std.

Deviation

Pretest

Scores

18.33 25 3.088

Posttest

Scores

18.37 25 2.151

Table 3. Effect of Using 3Ps Approach on Students’

Writing Scores in Control Group

As it can be seen, the students’ scores have improved

from 18.33 (49.95%) in the pretest to reach 18.37

(50.05%) in the posttest. The difference in the mean

scores between the two types of writing tests give

initial impression that the training the students

received using conventional learning model (3Ps) had

a very small effect on improving their writing

performance. This difference is clearly not significant.

However, and to make sure that the difference is not

important, a further test was needed to find out

whether the improvement was significant and could be

counted for.

Figure 2. Differences in Writing Scores as a Result

of Using 3Ps between the Pretest and Posttest in

Control Group

To determine whether the improvement in the

student’s scores as a result of using 3Ps approach

during training in the control group was significant, a

Paired Samples T-test was conducted using SPSS. As

shown in the inferential statistics (see Table 4), t (27)

= -.093, p = .926, since the significant value was larger


226

than alpha, the null hypothesis is accepted. It can be

confirmed that the treatment using 3Ps had no

significant effect on the control group students’

writing achievement.

Control

group

Mean t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Pretest

Scores -

Posttest

Scores

-.037 -.093 26 .926

Table 4 Statistical significance of Effect of Using

TBL Approach on Students’ Writing Scores in

Control Group

Although the students, who received training using the

conventional model of learning, known as 3Ps in the

control group, had improved a little bit, the difference

in their scores between the pretest and posttest was not

significantly important. This indicates that the effect

of the 3Ps approach is very limited in comparison to

the effect of using the TBL approach.

6.3 Difference between Using TBL Approach and

3ps Model in Improving Students’ Writing

Performance

The posttest scores obtained from the two groups of

students were keyed into SPSS to be Compared in

order to find the group differences as a result of

training. Since the comparison is between two diverse

groups of students, the Independent T-Test in SPSS

was used to compare the students’ posttest scores in

the control and experimental. The test aimed at finding

out which group had obtained more benefit of the

approaches used in training whether being TBL in the

experimental group or 3Ps in the control group.

As shown in the descriptive statistics in Table 5, the

mean score of the 25 students in the control group in

the posttest (M=18.37, SD = 2.15) were much lower

than the scores obtained by the experimental group in

the same test (M=23.16, SD = 1.7). This difference in

the mean scores indicates that there is a difference in

the improvement effect on behalf of the use of TBL as

a learning approach.

Protest

Scores

Mean N Std.

Deviation

Control

Group

25 18.3704 2.15100

Experimental

Group

25 23.1600 1.70000

Table 5. Difference between Using TBL Approach

and 3Ps Model on Students’ Writing Posttest Scores

in Control and Experimental Groups

These findings are visually illustrated in Figure 3. As

it can be seen, the students’ scores in the control group

18.37 (44.23%) in the posttest are very much lower

than the scores obtained by the students in the

experimental group 23.16 (55.77%) in the same

posttest. The difference in the mean scores between

the two groups indicates that the training using the

TBL approach was more effective in improving the

students writing scores than the training using

conventional learning model (3Ps).

Figure 3. Differences between Using TBL

Approach and 3Ps Model on Students’ Writing

Posttest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups

To determine whether the difference in effect between

the two approaches was significant, an Independent

samples test was conducted using SPSS. As shown in

the inferential statistics (see Table 6), t (24) = -.-8.154,

p = .000, since the significant value was larger than

alpha, the null hypothesis was accepted. It can be

confirmed that the training using TBL is significantly

more effective than the training using 3Ps model in

improving students’ writing achievement.

Protest

Scores

Mean t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Control

group-

Experimental

group

-4.720 -8.154 24 .000

Table 6. Statistical significance between Using TBL

Approach and 3Ps Model on Students’ Writing

Posttest Scores in Control and Experimental Groups

6.4 Aspects of Improvement Achieved by Using

TBL Approach

IJLLT 2(1):217-229

227

A close inspection of the students writing based on the

five-element criteria; organization, content,

vocabulary, mechanism, and grammar was made. The

distribution of each student’s scores was weighted out

of 5 points with a total of 25 points for the five

elements (see Table 7). The total number of students

in the experimental group was 25, so the total scores

for all students in each criteria element were 125. The

analysis of the students’ scores showed that the

students in the experimental group scored 93/125

points under the element organization which was

raised up to 119/120 after receiving training. Under the

mechanism criteria, the scores increased from 88/120

to reach 108/120. In the vocabulary, the increase was

from 94/120 to 115/120. The students’ use of grammar

rose from 95/120 to 113/120. In the last criteria, the

content scores were 91/120 and rose to 116/120.

Weight Organization

5

Mechanism

5

Vocabulary

5

Grammar

5

Content

5

Pretest

totals/120

93 88 94 94 91

Protest

totals/120

119 108 115 113 116

Table 7. Scores Distribution, Weight, and Increase in Students Writing Scores across 5-point criteria

Based on the discrete rating of the students answers in

the pretest and posttest as obtained by the

experimental group students (see Figure .4), it was

found that the students generally improved across the

five criteria; organization, content, vocabulary,

mechanism, and grammar. However, the improvement

was more in certain writing skills, such as

organization, vocabulary, and content. The other

aspects of grammar, the mechanism and grammar

were not developed noticeably. The following are the

aspects of improvement.

Figure 4. Aspects of Improvement in the

Experimental Group

7- CONCLUSION

The subjects’ writing performance in the experimental

class was improved noticeably after 6 weeks of using

the TBL approach. This method of learning has

affected them greatly as they improved in the five

aspects of English writing; organization, content,

mechanism, vocabulary, and grammar with the

organization and content the most improved areas.

This improvement did not occur in the control class

who used the conventional 3Ps model over the same

period of training. This indicates that the use of TBL

in writing was successful in elevating Saudi EFL

students’ competence of writing. It can be concluded

that the application of TBL Approach to Saudi EFL

students’ writing classrooms can yield significant

improvement to their writing competence, which

involves improvement on several writing sub-skills,

especially the organization and content.

REFERENCES

Al Fadda, H. 2012. Difficulties in academic writing:

From the perspective of King Saud

University postgraduate students. English

Language Teaching, 5(3): 123.

Alavi, S. M. & Tabar, N. A. 2012. The effect of task

type and pre-task planning condition on

the accuracy of intermediate EFL

learners' writing performance. The

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 36,

60.

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. & Wall, D. 1995.

Language test construction and

evaluation. Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Assalahi, H. M. 2013. Why Is the

Grammar-translation Method Still Alive

in the Arab World? Teachers. Beliefs and

Its implications for EFL Teacher

Education. Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, 3(4): 589.

Bantis, A. M. 2008. Using Task Based writing

instruction to provide differentiated

instruction to english language learners.

ProQuest. Birjandi, P. & Tabatabaei, O.


228

2010. Examining the Impact of Gender on

Task-Based Conversational Interactions

Among EFL Learners: The Case of

Recasts. JSR, 1(26): 35-64.

Cao, L. 2012. A feasibility study of task-based

teaching of college English writing in

Chinese EFL context. English Language

Teaching, 5(10): 80.

Clark, J., Scarino, A. & Brownell, J. 1994. Improving

the quality of learning. A Framework for

TOC Renewal in Hong Kong.

Creswell, J. W. 2011. Educational Research:

Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research. (4

ed.). Boston, USA: Pearson Education.

Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based language learning and

teaching. Oxford University Press

Oxford. Fallahrafie, Z., Rahmany, R. &

Sadeghi, B. 2015. The Effect of Task-

based Teaching on Incidental Vocabulary

Learning in English for Specific

Purposes. Cumhuriyet Science Journal,

36(3): 836-846.

Gilakjani, A. P. & Ahmadi, M. R. 2011. A study of

factors affecting EFL learners' English

listening comprehension and the

strategies for improvement. Journal of

Language Teaching and Research, 2(5):

977-988.

Hai-yan, M. 2014. The task-based teaching of writing

to big classes in Chinese EFL setting.

English Language Teaching, 7(3): 63.

Hamouda, A. (2016). The impact of Task-Based

Instruction on developing Saudi

university EFL students’ English-

speaking skills. Retrieved from

http://search.shamaa.org/PDF/Articles/E

GJfeau/JfeauVol32No2Y2016/jfeau_201

6-v32-n2_002-080_eng.pdf

Han, M. 2014. The Effects of Task-Based Teaching

Approach on College Writing Classes.

Studies in Literature and Language, 9(3):

182.

Harden, R. 2001. AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum

mapping: a tool for transparent and

authentic teaching and learning. Medical

teacher, 23(2): 123-137.

Hasan, A. A. A. 2014. The effect of using task-based

learning in Teaching English on the oral

performance of the secondary school

students. International Interdisciplinary

Journal of Education, 3(2): 250-264.

Hung, N. V. 2014. Review of Notion and Framework

of Task-Based Language Teaching.

International Journal of English

Language and Linguistic Research, 2(1):

39-48.

Javanbakht, Z. O. & Yasuj, I. 2011. The impact of

tasks on male Iranian elementary EFL

learners’ incidental vocabulary learning.

Language Education in Asia, 2(1): 28-42.

Keshta, A. S. & Harb, I. I. 2013. The effectiveness of

a blended learning program on

developing Palestinian tenth graders'

English writing skills. Education Journal,

2(6): 208-221.

Long, M. H. & Crookes, G. 1992. Three approaches to

task‐based syllabus design. Tesol

Quarterly, 26(1): 27-56.

Mohammadnia, Z. & Ayaz, P. 2015. The Effects of

Guided vs. Unguided Pressured Planning

on EFL Learners' Writing Fluency.

English Language Teaching, 8(3): 169.

Mourtaga, K. 2004. Investigating Writing Problems

Among Palestinian Students. Author

House.

Moussaoui, S. 2012. An Investigation of the Effects of

Peer Evaluation in Enhancing Algerian

Student's Writing Autonomy and Positive

Affect. Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 69(0): 1775-1784.

Nunan, D. 2005. An introduction to Task-Based

Language Teaching (Nunan, 2004). The

Asian EFL Journal Quarterly June 2005

Volume 7, Issue 1., 7(1): 25-28.

Nunan, D. 2006. Task-based language teaching in the

Asia context: Defining'task'. Asian EFL

Journal, 8(3).

Olsen, R. & Kagan, S. 1992. About cooperative

learning. Cooperative language learning:

A teacher’s resource book: 1-30.

Pearson PTR. Yeganeh, M. T. & Ghoreyshi, S. M.

2015. Exploring Gender Differences in

the use of Discourse Markers in Iranian

Academic Research Articles. Procedia -

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192:

684-689.

IJLLT 2(1):217-229

229

Qing, Z., Ni, S. & Hong, T. 2010. Developing critical

thinking disposition by task-based

learning in chemistry experiment

teaching. Procedia-Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 2(2): 4561-4570.

Ridha, N. 2012. The effect of EFL learners' mother

tongue on their writings in English: An

error analysis study. Journal of the

College of Arts, University of Basrah, 60:

22-45.

Shafaei, A., Salimi, A. & Talebi, Z. 2013. The impact

of gender and strategic pre-task planning

time on EFL learners’ oral performance in

terms of accuracy. Journal of Language

Teaching and Research, 4(4): 746-753.

Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language

learning. Oxford University Press.

Swales, J.

Thanh, L. & Huan, N. 2012. Task-based language

learning and student motivation in

vocabulary acquisition. Language

Education in Asia, 3(1): 106-120.

Tomlinson, B. 2011. Materials development in

language teaching. Cambridge

University Press.

Urmia, I. 2012. The Impact of Computer Assisted

Language Learning on Iranian EFL

Learners’ Task-Based Listening Skill and

Motivation. Journal of academic and

applied studies, 2(1): 39-61.

Willis, J. 1996. A framework for task-based learning.

Zhaochun, S. 2015. A Tentative Study on the Task-

Based Teaching of Writing to English

Majors in Chinese Settings. English

Language Teaching, 8(3): 71.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: writing analytical scale

Adopted from (Alderson et al. (1995: 109-110))

Score Criteria

Relevance and Adequacy of Content

0 The answer bears almost no relation to

the task set / Totally inadequate

answer

1 Answer of limited relevance to the task

set / Possibly major gaps in

treatment of topic and/or pointless

repetition

3 For the most part answers the task set,

though there may be some gaps or

redundant information.

5 Relevant and adequate answer to the task

set.

Organization

0 No apparent organization of content

1 Very little organization of content /

Underlying structures not sufficiently

apparent

3 Some-organizational skills in evidence

but not adequately controlled

5 Overall shape and internal pattern clear /

Organizational skills adequately

controlled

Vocabulary

0 Vocabulary inadequate even for the

most basic parts of the intended

communication

1 Frequent inadequacies in vocabulary for

the task / Perhaps frequent lexical

in appropriacies and/or repetitions

3 Some inadequacies in vocabulary for the

task / Perhaps some lexical

in appropriacies. and/or circumlocution.

5 Almost no inadequacies in vocabulary

for the task / Only rare

in appropriacies .and/or circumlocution

Grammar

0 Almost all grammatical patterns

inaccurate

1 Frequent grammatical inaccuracies

3 Some grammatical inaccuracies

5 Almost no grammatical inaccuracies

Mechanism (Punctuation/spelling)

0 Ignorance of conventions of punctuation

/ Almost all spelling inaccurate

1 Low standard of accuracy of punctuation

/ Low standard of accuracy in

spelling

3 Some inaccuracies of punctuation /

Some inaccuracies in spelling

5 Almost no inaccuracies of punctuation

/Almost no inaccuracies in spelling

/25 Total

international journal of linguistics, literature and translation … · 2019. 4. 4. ·...

Documents